## Facts

- Mr. Jennings, a gardener, provided Mrs. Rice, an elderly widow, with gardening, household maintenance, and personal care over several decades.
- Mrs. Rice repeatedly assured Mr. Jennings that he would receive her house and estate upon her death.
- Relying on these assurances, Mr. Jennings continued his services without formal payment, believing he would inherit the property.
- On Mrs. Rice's death, her will did not leave her house or estate to Mr. Jennings.
- Mr. Jennings brought a proprietary estoppel claim to enforce the assurances.
- The trial court awarded Mr. Jennings a lump sum of £200,000, less than the full value of the estate.
- Mr. Jennings appealed, claiming entitlement to the entire estate.

## Issues

1. Whether Mr. Jennings had established the elements of proprietary estoppel: assurance, reliance, and detriment.
2. If proprietary estoppel was established, the extent of the remedy to which Mr. Jennings was entitled.
3. Whether the awarded remedy should match the full value of the assurance or be limited to a proportionate response to the detriment suffered.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision awarding Mr. Jennings £200,000.
- The Court emphasized the principle that remedies for proprietary estoppel must be proportionate to the claimant's reliance and detriment, not automatically the value of the promised property.
- The remedy was determined based on the extent of Mr. Jennings’ reliance, the detriment suffered, and considerations of fairness.
- The expectation of inheriting the entire estate was found to be disproportionate relative to the services and detriment provided.

## Legal Principles

- Proprietary estoppel requires three elements: assurance, reliance, and detriment.
- The court has discretion to grant relief that is proportionate to the detriment suffered rather than rigidly enforce the original assurance.
- The proportionate remedy principle requires courts to balance the claimant's expectation with the detriment, ensuring remedies are neither excessively generous nor inadequate.
- Remedies may range from monetary awards to grants of property interests, depending on the circumstances.

## Conclusion

Jennings v Rice established that remedies in proprietary estoppel claims should be fair and proportionate to the detriment and expectation, granting courts flexibility to tailor relief to the facts rather than automatically awarding the full value of any assurance.

Jennings v Rice [2003] 1 P&CR 8